, 1887-02-10
Secretary Manning's Reply to
the House Committee
In Regard to the House and Sem
ate Retaliat0ry Bills.
A Very Carefully Prepared and
Able Document.

/ Manning has sent to Perry Belmont,
| chairman OF the house committee on
| foreign affairs, long and carefully
prepared reply to the request OF that
committee for his views with regard to
] the house and senate retaliation bills,
and for any suggestions that he may
desire to make with reference thereto.
| The secretary divides the subject to be
considered into two parts:
/ First-The fishing rights of the
United States.
Second-Tho commercial rights of
| United States vessels in Ca madam
ports.
The rights of the former class, he says,
are defined by treaties of 1888 and
| 1918, and 1--WE do not ask either of
Great Britain or Canada any other
rights, or liberties of taking, buying or
curing fish than those stipulated in
such treaties"
In respect to the commercial pri-
vileges for our fishing vessels in Cana
dian ports, the situation is otherwise.
Up to President Jackson's proclama-
ton of OCTOBER 5, 1890, this govern
ment had ito commercial privileges for
ltS NCSsClo III IoiNS' w '''N'
such privileges as colonists and we
lost them as colonists. We regained
them in 1880 by arrangement of legis-
lation finally concerted with Great
Britain, which was the result of an in
ternational understanding, that was
in effect, although not technical.
A GENERAL REVIEW.
The secretary then reviews at some
length the history of the relations be-
tween the government OF the United
States and Great Britain in this re-
spect from 1888 to 1880 al am not
aware" the secretary says, "of any
treaty" excepting the fishing clauses OF
the treaty of 1918 and the treaty
of 1871, or of any rule of in
ternational law, binding on the United
States, which now constrains Great
Britain to commercial intercourse
with ourselves in Canadian ports, and
from the point OF view of this depart
ment, Great Britain can, il she deems
it for her interest or necessary for her
safety, retreat from the understand
ings and agreements of 1880 Whether
| such retreat therefrom is to be deemed
by us an unfriendly act will depend
on its motives and environment. To
be sure the arrangement OF 1880 was
| not in u technical sense u treaty
| from engagements of which neither
party Can withdraw without the consent
of the other amicibly obtained, but it
was to be rule for two powerful states.
1t was fact representing will and
| opinions of each. 1t was deliberate
international act, 1t was bargain,
in which our government bought II
privilege at the price OF an equivalent
given to another. 1t was contract
solemnized and tested by law making,
instead of the treaty making power of
the two nations.
WHAT WE ARE NOW CONFRONTED BY
is the royal assent given by the Queen
in November 26, 1886, to the Canadian
act entitled can act further to amend
an act respecting fisheries by foreign
vessels 1t begins by reciting that il
is eXpedient for more eflectual protcc-
lection of the in-shore fisheries OF
Canada against intrusion by foreign
ers. The Otiensive Significance of that
law is in fact that by "what | assume
is law" the statute establishing the
Canadian union. The governor gen
eral must, according to his discretion
but subject to the Queens instructions
either declare that he assents in the
Queens name to the bill passed by the
houses of Canadian parliament, OF
that he withholds the Queens assent
cor that he resents the bill for signifi-
cation of the Queens pleasure" The
last named alternative phrase was
adopted in dealing with the Canadian
law of 1886, which pre-emptorily
closes Canadian ports to our fishery
vessels seeking to trade. 1t empowers
any of the therein designated officials
to bring to and search any American
vessels being within any Canadian
harbor, or "hovering" in British
waters. This is revival in Canada OF
the theory Of an
ANCIENT BRITISH LOWERING ACT
and language is repeated in the moth
er country. If the search prescribed
and authorized be of a fishing vessel
looting prohibited places and fairly
suspected of preparing thereto fish in
violation of the law, such search, il
fairly and reasonably made, may be
tolerated. Our own custom law pre-
scribes and authorizes similar search
OF foreign vessels even four league,
from our coast. But the Canadian &C,
thus having royal approval was in
tended, AZ has been properly avowed
TO forfeit any American fishing vesse
which is found having entered Cansd
ian waters or the port of Halifax u